We need more info, so I'm preparing a proposal here, and also I have another question which I'll pose in a subsequent thread, I'm picking over the wording.

We will not get a lynch today on present information and circumstances, not a meaningful one anyway, it's hard to lynch people without some proof, trust me, I've a lot of experience lynching people. So we want more info, which means we must encourage people to try to come up with decent questions and to answer them.

To this end, people must have an incentive to try to come up with questions. I suggest a pledge not to lynch anyone who comes up with a question the majority of people answer, so long as this question is reasonably meaningful, e.g. no "Are there people in your setting?" etc. I would also go a bit further and say people should pledge that if they have a NK they will not target this person tonight with it, nor vote to target them if it's a group NK. To avoid overwhelming numbers, we'll put a cap on the first 8 questions and one per customer, so first 8 people to aks a question answered by most people.

I view Hobo (settings) and Artsapat (Gender) as being qualified for this as 1 and 2. Obviously I also qualify with 3 questions and a 4th upcoming, but I'll leave myself as removable, i.e. you can makes this pledge and explicitly say you are not including me, but in the interest to fairness if you say that, I will not consider my own pledge to apply to you and will feel no obligation not to vote for you or NK you, should I have access to the latter. Obviously if you want to gain the protection of this pledge for a question you ask, you should be willing to make it yourself, and be willing to answer questions too.

Note that agreeing not to NK someone on night 1 does not indicate you're a NKer, so you need not muck around with any 'but I'm town so I can't pledge that' stuff, it's just 'if I have one, I won't target these people with it.

So again, that's currently Hobo, Artsapat, and myself with the caveat. These people I now pledge not to vote for on day 1 or NK on night 1, along with anyone else who meets the terms listed above who either asks a new question or who I forgot asked one that got answered. I encourage others to do the same, and before anyone asks, most players will honor that pledge about NKs, there's a difference between lying as a DF and breaking a pledge that didn't significantly impact you're ability to win. Asking the DFs not to NK anyone tonight and everyone to pledge to that would be unfair, they can't not make the pledge without looking guilty and it disadvantages them, so you don't ask for stuff like that, this, speaking as a veteran DF, is a pledge I'd have no problem making and honoring if I were a DF. Also, please no Aes Sedai word games. This is less about pro-town tactics as it is about a pro-game move to get talking and inquiry going again. If you're a DF, spend less time trying to worm you're way out of making the pledge and more time playing the game, like trying to figure out how to ask a question people will be willing to answer and thus protecting yourself from lynch/NK on Day/Night 1.

So that's, the pledge, people who ask useful questions basically get a free pass to live till tomorrow.

Okay, my next question:

Do you believe you character and your role - abilities and alignment - are consistent? Yes or No only

As usual, we should kick the question around real quick for flaws or better wording, but that's basically it. Vanillas should be answering yes to this even if you're the Ur-Example of something (Punisher for vigilante, superman for bulletproof)yet a vanilla, just go with 'Yes', which means if you are a medical dcotor, but just a vanilla, that's still consistent, go with 'yes', just about all major characters of a heroic nature could arguably qualify as investigatory roles, so even in an all-role game it's not likely they'd all be investigators. It's the presence of something contradictory, not the absence of something one might expect, that we're looking for. So no UNC, if you're uncertain, that's a 'No'

Examples of No
I am an evil super villain but town

I am batman, but the vig... Batman is a vigilante, but this game's vig kills people, batman is practically 'Lawful Stupid', he'll throw the Joker back in jail even though he's escaped and killed people like 100 times, same as Superman has never just snapped Luthor's neck, neither would be consistent with the vig role.

My character is notoriously one thing, but I am something else. I am the doc role, even though my character is Sherlock Holmes, Ur-example of the detective.


So I am Jason Vorhees, and bulletproof makes sense, the guy is unkillable, but as a townie, that's not consistent and you say 'No', or as a doc 'No', because he doesn't typically perform life-saving surgery with that machete. If you're a scummer but you are a hero character, that's a 'No', etc.

It's my opinion that everyone will probably be able to say 'Yes' to this, I can, my character's alignment and role ability or lack thereof are consistent. I believe we need to eliminate the option that this is not the case now, so while there is some risk involved for townies who are villains or people with illogical role powers, I think we should take it. I am open to revision if someone has a better phrasing. One potential alternate phrasing would be such that vanillas who are characters you'd just expect to have a role ability could say 'No', this could leave room for a lot people who are vanilla to say 'No' but give cover to roles if we have roles who are contradictory, personally I'm not expecting that so I'd rather all vanillas who aren't villain characters say yes, but it's an alternative I'm reasonably open to.